Anti-Intellectualism and the "Dumbing Down" of America

There is a growing and disturbing trend of anti-intellectual elitism in American culture. It’s the dismissal of science, the arts, and humanities and their replacement by entertainment, self-righteousness, ignorance, and deliberate gullibility.

Susan Jacoby, author of The Age of American Unreason, says in an article in the Washington Post, "Dumbness, to paraphrase the late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, has been steadily defined downward for several decades, by a combination of heretofore irresistible forces. These include the triumph of video culture over print culture; a disjunction between Americans' rising level of formal education and their shaky grasp of basic geography, science and history; and the fusion of anti-rationalism with anti-intellectualism."

There has been a long tradition of anti-intellectualism in America, unlike most other Western countries. Richard Hofstadter, who won a Pulitzer Prize in 1964 for his book, Anti-Intellectualism In American Life, describes how the vast underlying foundations of anti-elite, anti-reason and anti-science has been infused into America’s political and social fabric. Famous science fiction writer Isaac Asimov once said: "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

Mark Bauerlein, in his book, The Dumbest Generation, reveals how a whole generation of youth are being dumbed down by their aversion to reading anything of substance and their addiction to digital "crap" via social media.

Journalist Charles Pierce, author of Idiot America, adds another perspective: “The rise of idiot America today represents--for profit mainly, but also and more cynically, for political advantage in the pursuit of power--the breakdown of a consensus that the pursuit of knowledge is a good. It also represents the ascendancy of the notion that the people whom we should trust the least are the people who best know what they are talking about. In the new media age, everybody is an expert.”

“There’s a pervasive suspicion of rights, privileges, knowledge and specialization,” says Catherine Liu, the author of American Idyll: Academic Antielitism as Cultural Critiqueand a film and media studies professor at University of California. The very mission of universities has changed, argues Liu. “We don’t educate people anymore. We train them to get jobs.”

Part of the reason for the rising anti-intellectualism can be found in the declining state of education in the U.S. compared to other advanced countries:

After leading the world for decades in 25-34 year olds with university degrees, the U.S. is now in 12th place. The World Economic Forum ranked the U.S. at 52nd among 139 nations in the quality of its university math and science instruction in 2010. Nearly 50% of all graduate students in the sciences in the U.S. are foreigners, most of whom will be returning to their home countries;

The Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs commissioned a civic education poll among public school students. A surprising 77% didn't know that George Washington was the first President; couldn't name Thomas Jefferson as the author of the Declaration of Independence; and only 2.8% of the students actually passed the citizenship test. Along similar lines, the Goldwater Institute of Phoenix did the same survey and only 3.5% of students passed the civics test;

According to the National Research Council report, only 28% of high school science teachers consistently follow the National Research Council guidelines on teaching evolution, and 13% of those teachers explicitly advocate creationism or "intelligent design;"

18% of Americans still believe that the sun revolves around the earth, according to a Gallup poll;

The American Association of State Colleges and Universities report on education shows that the U.S. ranks second among all nations in the proportion of the population aged 35-64 with a college degree, but 19th in the percentage of those aged 25-34 with an associate or high school diploma, which means that for the first time, the educational attainment of young people will be lower than their parents;

74% of Republicans in the U.S. Senate and 53% in the House of Representatives deny the validity of climate change despite the findings of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and every other significant scientific organization in the world;

According to the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress, 68% of public school children in the U.S. do not read proficiently by the time they finish third grade. And the U.S. News & World reported that barely 50% of students are ready for college level reading when they graduate;

According to a 2006 survey by National Geographic-Roper, nearly half of Americans between ages 18 and 24 do not think it necessary to know the location of other countries in which important news is being made. More than a third consider it "not at all important" to know a foreign language, and only 14 percent consider it "very important;"

According to the National Endowment for the Arts report in 1982, 82% of college graduates read novels or poems for pleasure; two decades later only 67% did. And more than 40% of Americans under 44 did not read a single book--fiction or nonfiction--over the course of a year. The proportion of 17 year olds who read nothing (unless required by school ) has doubled between 1984-2004;

Gallup released a poll showing 42 percent of Americans still believe God created human beings in their present form less than 10,000 years ago;

A 2008 University of Texas study found that 25 percent of public school biology teachers believe that humans and dinosaurs inhabited the earth simultaneously.

In American schools, the culture exalts the athlete and good-looking cheerleader. Well-educated and intellectual students are commonly referred to in public schools and the media as "nerds," "dweebs," "dorks," and "geeks," and are relentlessly harassed and even assaulted by the more popular "jocks" for openly displaying any intellect. These anti-intellectual attitudes are not reflected in students in most European or Asian countries, whose educational levels have now equaled and and will surpass that of the U.S. And most TV shows or movies such as The Big Bang Theory depict intellectuals as being geeks if not effeminate.

John W. Traphagan ,Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Texas, argues the problem is that Asian countries have core cultural values that are more akin to a cult of intelligence and education than a cult of ignorance and anti-intellectualism. In Japan, for example, teachers are held in high esteem and normally viewed as among the most important members of a community. There is suspicion and even disdain for the work of teachers that occurs in the U.S. Teachers in Japan typically are paid significantly more than their peers in the U.S. The profession of teaching is one that is seen as being of central value in Japanese society and those who choose that profession are well compensated in terms of salary, pension, and respect for their knowledge and their efforts on behalf of children.

In addition, we do not see in Japan significant numbers of the types of religious schools that are designed to shield children from knowledge about basic tenets of science and accepted understandings of history--such as evolutionary theory or the religious views of the Founding Fathers, who were largely deists--which are essential to having a fundamental understanding of the world, Traphagan contends. The reason for this is because in general Japanese value education, value the work of intellectuals, and see a well-educated public with a basic common knowledge in areas of scientific fact, math, history, literature, etc. as being an essential foundation to a successful democracy.

We’re creating a world of dummies. Angry dummies who feel they have the right, the authority and the need not only to comment on everything, but to make sure their voice is heard above the rest, and to drag down any opposing views through personal attacks, loud repetition and confrontation.

Bill Keller, writing in the New York Times argues that the anti-intellectual elitism is not an elitism of wisdom, education, experience or knowledge. The new elite are the angry social media posters, those who can shout loudest and more often, a clique of bullies and malcontents baying together like dogs cornering a fox. Too often it’s a combined elite of the anti-intellectuals and the conspiracy followers – not those who can voice the most cogent, most coherent response. Together they forment a rabid culture of anti-rationalism where every fact is suspect; every shadow holds a secret conspiracy. Rational thought is the enemy. Critical thinking is the devil’s tool.

Keller also notes that the herd mentality takes over online; the anti-intellectuals become the metaphorical equivalent of an angry lynch mob when anyone either challenges one of the mob beliefs or posts anything outside the mob’s self-limiting set of values.

Keller blames this in part to the online universe that “skews young, educated and attentive to fashions.” Fashion, entertainment, spectacle, voyeurism – we’re directed towards trivia, towards the inconsequential, towards unquestioning and blatant consumerism. This results in intellectual complacency. People accept without questioning, believe without weighing the choices, join the pack because in a culture where convenience rules, real individualism is too hard work. Thinking takes too much time: it gets in the way of the immediacy of the online experience.

Reality TV and pop culture presented in magazines and online sites claim to provide important information about the importance of The Housewives of [you name the city] that can somehow enrich our lives. After all, how else can one explain the insipid and pointless stories that tout divorces, cheating and weight gain? How else can we explain how the Kardashians, or Paris Hilton are known for being famous for being famous without actually contributing anything worth discussion. The artificial events of their lives become the mainstay of populist media to distract people from the real issues and concerns facing us.

The current trend of increasing anti-intellectualism now establishing itself in politics and business leadership, and supported by a declining education system should be a cause for concern for leaders and the general population, one that needs to be addressed now.

I couldn't agree more and can't help but say that I would be happier if I had a dollar for every time someone told me: "you READ too much"; "you THINK too much"; you have too much TIME on your hands."

Like, what am I supposed to do, dig a ditch, play Angry Birds (which was given for FREE!)rather than read a book?

I browsed a "People" magazine once and read the copy that went with the photos. For example: a celebrity couple on a roller coaster in a theme park, "they were laughing and holding hands" WOW! Duh! They're at an AMUSEMENT PARK, hardly a revelation!

You are right, these times are producing the most vapid, uncurious people who "just don't want to go there." Which is, WHERE?

Having taught for years in Japan I agree with what you said about how teaching and education is viewed there, but disagree with the bit about how the Japanese 'see a well-educated public with a basic common knowledge in areas of scientific fact, math, history, literature, etc. as being an essential foundation to a successful democracy,' the problem being 'history', in particular the truth about WWII. There is an ongoing battle in Japan over the approved history textbooks for secondary schools. Most Japanese people still don't know much about what happened.
On the day that commemorates the end of WWII, the Japanese news media marks the occasion by running stories on how much Japanese people suffered during the war.
History is a touchy subject over there.

I'm inclined to chime in with an observation that Ray is possibly too generous in his admiration of Europe. The bystander sees more of the game and, as an Education Technologist, I'm so placed. I've worked in the UK for the past ten years and Ireland for the past two. The situation in the UK is the same as the US. In Ireland, not so much - but it is deteriorating. Teachers are still, in the main, trusted and respected. However, working with academics in universities I am dismayed by the obvious lowering of standards there. Lectures are delivered by people whose only practical skill is passing exams and that is the only skill they are capable of passing on. There is no intellectual curiosity no hunger for knowledge, no ambition. Research only occurs when it is being funded and it is little more than a minor tweak of established work.

Teachers receive no formal training once they're certified and their certification really is just a testimony to their classroom management competence. Anything that happens after that are ad-hoc training days. Those teachcrs are life-long students in a world that asks life-long learners. They achieved a standard that was too low for anything except being elibiable for teacher training courses. In short, they are the kids who were swots and have existed only inside the school walls.

As far as the UK is concerned, it's more true of England than Scotland, where teaching is still a respected profession. It's interesting that when we talk about the Enlightenment, we talk about the SCOTTISH Enlightenment, not the BRITISH Enlightenment!

GJ:
Good comment. I know of what you speak. I was born in a POW camp in Hong Kong as a prisoner of the Japanese, and am aware of how Japanese officials are both rewriting history and denying their behaviour during the war

Let's not forget one of the major strains of anti-scientism and anti-rationalism in American life - namely, left-wing post-modernist 'thought'.

After all, fundamentalist Christians do not deny that there are truths that we can know. The 'there is no truth', 'everything is subjectivity' brigade has done unimaginable harm to intellectual life in the West, as was their intent.

People like Freud and the members of the Frankfurt School admitted to trying to undermine Western culture. They have been so successful that cultural marxism infests our universities, in which social science has been reduced to 'lived experience' narratives of post-colonialist post-marxist experience.

East asians and others who are succeeding in science and math have no interest in this drek, which is why they make up the bulk of students in STEM fields. Domestic white kids are no longer competitive, because of the brainwashing.

That is absolute nonsense, and even if it were true, that wouldn't actually stop anyone from pursuing STEM fields if they wanted to. Your bizarre disdain for the Liberal Arts and your dismissal of Social Sciences as "brainwashing" is hilarious. If you had a better understanding of Social Science, you wouldn't think we lived in a Sociological vacuum. People do not enter school, even primary school, as black slates free of any and all influence. They are already, at least partially, aware of how a society functions and of their place in it. And if they are not, they learn pretty quickly. Social Sciences, if we wanted to put it in the terms you like, is not brainwashing, it's deprogramming. It is learning that not everything you have been taught to be true is true and that your experience isn't the universal and only. Maybe if more people understood that we'd live in a better world.

How ridiculous. Religion does nothing but try to stop scientific education. How about "Creationism" being taught in school? Ever read a Beka Book from Bob Jones Univeristy? They tell kids that man and the dinosaurs were both on earth at the same time. Give me a break.

The fact that liberals tend to believe in climate change has nothing to do with their acceptance of or love for science. They only believe in this because it seems to "prove" their anticapitalistic sentiments ("Capitalism is destroying the world"). For this reason, they desperately want climate change to be true, even if it destroys the globe - but with them being right. Liberals hastily leave the principles of science if it suits their sentiments, like with their hatred for GMO or their anti vaccine shit.

First, believing in climate change means believing that you will have to make sacrifices. It isn't about hating Capitalism, it's about looking at the evidence and seeing that we have to change before we completely destroy ourselves. We'd all like to believe that we don't have to change.

Second, while I'm sure there are a lot of liberals who would never eat anything that might be genetically modified, the folks I know tend to want there to be decent testing, but hardly a ban. GMO foods may help to solve much of the hunger in the world.

Third, everyone I know loves vaccines. There are anti-vaxxers at both ends of the political spectrum and they are all putting their own paranoia ahead of the public good, not to mention their own health.

So, how about you? Do you believe in science? Are you willing to admit that the 97% of climate scientists who believe in climate change might be telling the truth and not trying to destroy Capitalism? How about evolution?

How do you feel about scientific evidence that says you're wrong about something? Do you completely deny it? Question it? Look for more evidence? Science is neither liberal nor conservative, but it can and will challenge beliefs throughout the political spectrum.

Science does have that potential, that power, to illuminate. The problem is we have a populace that has completely tuned out imbalanced ways of living on earth. We choose to "check out" because we don't know what to do, or it's all too much or in some case, we just don't give a shit.

People don't believe in climate change; no, they accept its empirically based scientific conclusions. Science is not a belief system. It's depressing that so many people try to politicize science. It doesn’t take a genius to figure that capitalism is, without any question, one of the most destructive forces the planet has ever seen, but this does not have any bearing on whether anthropogenic climate change is actually happening. However, you are equally correct about vaccines and GMOs for the science doesn’t support those faulty conclusions either. Nevertheless, from where I sit, you’re seemingly no different than the lefties you denigrate. The underlying empirical evidence supports anthropogenic climate change but does not support the myriad claims about GMOs or vaccines. How do you defend this inconsistency?

Your misspelling of your headline sorely undermines your points, Steve. It's the same case with the article, although in that case perhaps it actually serves to emphasize the point. It's sad that an article lamenting the decline in knowledge and education in the U.S. is filled with so many typos and grammatical errors. If anyone thinks they can't spot them, maybe they should brush up on their own English/grammar skills a little. Proofreading is so important. I'm surprised the author and website didn't check it over more carefully.

Perhaps you should consider a few things: Firstly, the device I used in which to input this information (my mobile phone). Secondly, a typo is not representative of anything other than a simple mistake; are you suggesting you do not make mistakes? Thirdly, the article is about anti-intellectualism so your post reveals a rather pedantic person behind a computer, yet one who seemingly cannot stay on topic. Lastly, and ironically, you fall prey to your own argument. Please, anonymous, I invite you to reread your own post and see whether you can spot the comma splice. Indeed, playing the grammar game is a dangerous one . . .

You obviously don't know what a comma splice is. I only used a comma twice, and a semicolon is clearly not necessary in either instance. However, my main point was concerning the errors in the article above. I can understand how someone quickly posting a comment in reply could easily make a typo, but an article posted online should be more carefully proofread, particularly when it's talking about education.

Perhaps you should read Robert’s rather tongue-in-cheek post. I did and it made me laugh! Although I do agree that grammar and proofreading are important there are greater concerns. Wouldn’t you agree? Moreover, I know precisely what a comma splice is. My confusion about your sentence stemmed from, as I see it, your rather imprecise wording. In short, I thought you were using the word “although’ interchangeably with “however.” The word “although” connects contrasting ideas but yours were not contrasting ideas. It was more of a change in direction or outcome. Therefore, I argue that the conjunctive adverb “however” would have been more appropriate because you changed your position from “undermines” to “emphasize,” and with the word “however” the order of presenting a writer's thoughts is important because whatever comes next, in this case “emphasize” is the way things turned out. I think in both cases it would actually undermine rather than emphasize but, then again, that’s just me.

So, did my typo undermine my point? Only the reader can decide that, but your point is not only pedantic it’s also off topic. This was my overarching point. Clearly, I know how to spell the word “climate,” so whether my not catching the typo was a result of expedience, laziness or my input device it was most assuredly not a result of anti-intellectualism or even my ignorance.

Steve, "although" is a subordinating conjunction, which is every bit as appropriate to use in connecting independent clauses as "however". In this particular sentence, "however" wouldn't have expressed my meaning as accurately. The ideas were, in fact, contrasting. I'm sorry you don't see it that way.

As I said earlier, my main point above was regarding the typos in the main article. Your typo was simply the catalyst for my post. I was already wondering why the author would publish an article on this subject that includes typos and grammatical errors.

Rolf,
China has the worst pollution in the world and China is not capitalistic. Liberals do not believe that capitalism is ruining or destroying the world. Liberals are also not against vaccinations. In your ignorance, which is proving the points made by this article, you are taking beliefs (originally credited to Fox News - not a bastion of liberalism - http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/trump-warns-fox-news-viewers-autism-caused-by-vaccines/) about vaccines and redirecting it to liberals. Also, we don't hate GMOs, we just want to know when they're being force fed to our children. It's a bad, and quite frankly ignorant policy, to speak stereotypically of large groups of people you obviously know nothing about. Liberals are nothing like the small groups of "radicals" presented for your amusement on Fox News. In fact, most liberals are offended by what they see on Fox because it does not factually portray what the majority of liberals believe or want for this country. No more so than MSNBC portrays a realistic example of what Conservatives want. You may find, with a little bit of research, that most Americans do not have their best interest portrayed by the media, which is what this article is discussing. You may also believe that liberals believe that abortion is a form of birth control - that is also not true. I don't any liberals who would have an abortion for the purpose of birth control, but that's what Fox News tells Conservatives. That said, liberals understand that some people may not agree with what liberals believe, and those people should have that right to disagree. You have the right to believe whatever you want in this country. You have the right to ignore facts or accept them as fact. And you have the right to pretend to believe to know things for which you know nothing. That's the beauty of living in America.

I feel like if I came in here and talked about Conservatives in terms of the worst of them, you'd get upset. "Liberals" are not anti-vax, nor are we collectively hard line Marxists. I'm not a scientist, but I tend to believe scientists when they tell me things. How about you?

FFS! We want to PREVENT climate change, and to PREVENT it destroying the planet on which we all live. The measures we need to take in order to bring this about do involve a more equitable distribution of resources, this is true. People have DONE THE RESEARCH, it's not a matter of sentiment.

While I agree with the notion that America is intellectually stunted in comparison with other countries, I feel that the eveolution education is not one that is pertinent to this article or argument. While it is important to put all theories and models on the table for people, especially children, to form their own basis of knowledge and opinions, Evolution is supported by scientific evidence but, is not technically 100% proven. To say that evolution should be placed above the religious theories involving the creation of the earth would be to support teh stunting of spiritual development. Both theories should be validated and equivicoble in schools as one has not been proved over the other....Let us not limit our field and range of knowledge, possibilities, and theories as that is exactly what is leading to this problem of ignorance in America....

I'm thankful that someone spoke up on that. I honestly was rather offended by this article, it practically called Christians unintelligent. Saying that because we believe in the creation of life and humans through the hands of God we are evidence to this culture of anti-intellectualism; That's offensive! I'm entitled to my faith and just because I'm against the science of creation doesn't mean my intelligence is hindered. Doesn't the author of the article know that some of the worlds greatest leaders of scientific advancement were indeed Christians? Issac Newton for example.

Your use of the word "empirical" suggest that the science taught in school is able to be confirmed through observation and experience. However, evolution cannot be observed or experienced, it is a theory that has not been proven and yet is taught as if it was. Let me know when you your self grow a new body part or see a fish grow legs, then maybe I'll listen.

Evolution is experienced in a million ways and is completely observable if you look around. The fact that your children will not look exactly like you is evolution. The fact that animals can hide unseen from predators is evolution. To say the God created these changes and adaptations, would be to admit that God is fallible. Are you prepared to admit that God made mistakes and corrected those errors through adaptation? Evolution has been proven time and time again. On the same hand, the existence of a God has never been proven by science or any other faction. God has evolved just as humans have evolved. Evolution affects all things living and imagined. God is nothing more than a belief, and you can neither prove or disprove a believe. You can only prove and disprove facts. One cannot disprove facts with belief - that is the definition of stupid. 2000 years ago, people believed that lighten bolts were thrown from the sky by God. Do you still believe that? Should we teach that in schools? Do you believe that the black skies over most major cities are natural? Or do you believe that humans have something to do with air and water pollution? Living your life on an unfounded, biased belief system that was created by the ruling class when most humans were still living in caves is about as ignorant as one can be. I don't believe that Christians are anymore or less intelligent than anyone else, but I do believe that they are far less likely to consider any relevant science that puts their faith at risk.

Actually, the fact that children do not look exactly like their parents has nothing to do with evolution, Patrick. It's heredity, genealogical science. I strongly agree that most Christians misunderstand what the Theory of Evolution even says, but at the same time, a belief in evolution is not really incompatible with Christian beliefs. One can still believe God created the world using evolution.

Actually, it does have to do with evolution. The fact that we don't look exactly like our parents is because of sex. Sex is the result of natural selection and genetic drift. Sex increases our genetic variability and served as an advantage. While many people like to believe you can believe in god and evolution, that's just molding ancient beliefs to the demands of modern science.

That is positively incorrect. I suggest learning what you're talking about before you try to talk about it. Evolution is a Law, it happens. What makes Evolution theoretical is that the mechanics of how and why is something that is still being studied. Theory explains law, that is why we have both a law of Gravity and a theory of Gravity.

It's interesting that I wrote up (am still editing and haven't published, yet) a blog post just for this topic. So I can just copy an excerpt and perhaps you will come to understand Evolution.

As far as we know, all creatures on Earth evolved from earlier ancestors through a process of natural selection in which creatures with mutations that increased survivability, survived and had children – thus passing those mutations on, while those without did not. Changes caused by mutations over time build up and differentiate these surviving individuals from their ancestors resulting in a different species.

Evolution is observable today in creatures shorter-lived than humans; some bacterial generations last an entire day at most, while cockroaches evolve over a period of months to years.

Evolution in bacteria which infect the human body is most noticeable in that those that do not die to the medicines we use will reproduce, creating medicine resistant bacteria which may end up killing the infected individual unless more powerful or dire measures are used (especially when the patient fails to use the full dose of their medicine, properly).

Certain cockroaches have evolved the ability to evade insect baits (poisoned) by taste. The cockroaches avoided foods with high sugar content (Previous baits would use foods with so much sugar that the cockroach simply could not resist it. All animals, including humans, have a taste system based on sugar content); these super cockroaches were observed in a laboratory and it was noticed that the same taste receptors that activated for bitter foods would activate when tasting the super sweet poison.

This reaction (the result of a mutation that accidentally modified the taste receptors) occurred no matter if the food was poisoned or not; if it was “too good to be true” then the cockroach would think it was bitter. These cockroaches thus are able to survive in an environment with industrial/retail/commercial baits because they can identify the poison by its sugar content; as a result, newer baits (which might be less reliable, given they don’t have the pull of an impossible-to-resist food) have to be created for them.

The ironic thing (and an example of how evolution can be counter-intuitive) is that in a normal situation (where food with high sugar content is not necessarily poisoned) these cockroaches would have less survivability than their non-mutated cousins.
This is evolution in play today; while it’s true no one was around to observe the evolution of humans and their ancestors (or that of lions and other creatures, such as trees or fungi) we can extrapolate. While humans and such live lonvger, we are subject to the same basic truths (cell division is not a perfect process - all life forms mutate from generation to generation; those with the mutations that improve survivability are the ones to survive and have children, and thus pass their mutations on ) and thus we can extrapolate that this has led to our survival over the course of thousands if not millions of years (for our non-human ancestors).

So, Mr. Parks, while with the cockroaches, it might SEEM like that anti-poison gene had to have been created intentionally, it just so happens that the cockroaches with that mutated gene did not eat the poison and thus survived to have children.

That is evolution, today, here, now. There is no question as to whether or not evolution exists because we see it plain as day.

Having grown up conservative Christian, I found myself constantly having to battle the contradictions that my peers felt were completely compatible when the are clearly not: a friend who believes she believes all 10 of the Ten Commandments yet, in fact, only believes in 8 or 9 of them, and likewise throws out whole book of the Bible as irrelevant or untrue, yet insists that she believes the entire Bible. Galileo was a Christian and also a first rate scientist, yet is was placed under house arrest, and nearly 20% of Americans STILL believe the sun revolves around the earth. I'm sorry to break your balloon, but I had to get off that ship. It was sinking.

Except teaching evolution in schools is antithetical to the entire concept of education. Separation of church and state, period. Keep religion in the household and/or religious institutions. It has absolutely NO PLACE in the education system, period.

I think this article tries to address too many topics all at once and also displays some obvious bias towards certain viewpoints. The life of the mind and the intellect is important for us to develop as individuals and as a society but so are other elements such as wisdom, discernment, and goodness. We absolutely don't want to check our brains at the door but many of this past century's most bloodthirsty tyrants have been highly educated, fiercely empirical, and coldly rational. My suspicion is that they developed their minds without developing their internal lives so their intellects were left to be manipulated by their own dark desires. Hopefully all of us will seek truth and acknowledge truth to be more than just what we can observe with our eyes but also what we can know with our hearts and spirits. Cold scientific 'facts' cannot be trusted unless they are within a system which acknowledges all of the ways of 'knowing' and the role of virtues like wisdom and goodness in interpreting what we 'see'. The scientists, artists, teachers, and mystics need to work together to discern what is real and what is right instead of leaving this in the hands of any one group.

In order to have a theory you need to observe something, as Darwin observed animals in his studies.

Creation stories do have anthropological value, as they are a record of the belief systems that shaped a culture, and they contain truths within them. However the two should not be taught side-by-side in a science class.

Darwin's theories might apply to origins of species, but could not be applied to the origin of life itself. As no human, Darwin included, observed abiogenesis. Using your rationale, of course.

If there could be no theories without observations, that would also mean that Theoretical Physicists have been doing nothing but philosophy for almost 100 years. The person who believes that there was a creator being could also say, "There is the world and a huge biodiversity, I observe it, also the rate of evolution as I observe it does not seem to be dynamic enough to have created the biodiversity on Earth or explain how life came about in the first place. So my theory is that there was an outside influence or a creator being." From there the theories split up along the lines of the nature of that creator, the time frame and the method of that creation.

The quantitative measures presented here do reflect a truth about America but the examples provided and the thumbnail I found on this page just turned towards offensive. Anti-intellectualism certainly is prevalent in the US, but if this is the case, then that anti-intellectualism must run across political, philosophical, and theological camps. Simply, that there are stupid conservatives AND liberals as well as ignorant people of EVERY faith. Luckily for us the converse is true as well even if it is in decline. It's not so much what you believe as why it is that you believe it. The fact of anti-intellectualism is used as an opportunity by political operatives of every stripe to convert or entrench their particular brand of political thought. At the honest core of the schools of thought mentioned in your examples there is a desire for knowledge. Certainly there is a historical tradition of intellectualism to be found in most of the Orthodox branches of world religions. The trouble with equating intellectualism with acceptance of prevailing scientific thought runs the danger of branding Galileo, Newton, and Pasteur as unintellectual. But I must end this comment agreeing the dead on assessment of America's values of education and educators. US anti-intellectualism is best reflected in our attitudes about knowledge and learning. A major problem with our educational system (out of many) is that we view the only value of an education as the ability to get a job or produce quantifiable results. An educated populace can be easily trained to do anything. A trained populace must be retrained at each shift in the economic landscape.

"An educated populace can be easily trained to do anything. A trained populace must be retrained at each shift in the economic landscape."

If only we could convince the people running businesses that this is actually the right way to view the populous. Instead, they expect the college-bound to spend upwards of $60K-$80K to get a college "education" -- more of a trade school education, really -- that employers only view as useful for a handful of years. Then those employees will be tossed aside and the next crop of expendables can be hired to take their place. The educated and easily trainable employee is nothing more than an annoyance to most of today's corporations. Sadly, this view of the workforce began to take hold about 30 years or so ago and, nowadays, is almost universally held.

If the books are not in the home there is no hope for the schools. I was a representative for a technical school for 15 years. In interview after interview in the homes of Americans in 7 different state one of the things I would look for was reading material. At most in homes the only reading materials was the pile of mail on the dining room table. No books, no news papers, no magazines,no where in the home. At most the students book bag thrown in a corner. On top of that vacuum there was no art on most of the walls with the exception on occasion of a pop star poster.

My parents were poor but we read and had books, encyclopedia, magazines and newspapers all the time. Today one room of my home is actually a library with little room for more books, but more books come. The ignorance in America is deep in the soul.

My wife used to ride the bus to work in a mid sized city. She always had a book for comfort and fun. The most frequent comment from fellow riders was that they had not read a book since leaving school and they were proud of it. It only follows that their children have no respect for the written work.

We've got book cases in just about every room in the house: living room, family room, bedrooms, kitchen, etc. (Frankly, we're beginning to run out of room.) My daughters wound up reading quite early. I think seeing their parents reading (a lot) was a huge influence. We sometimes had to take them to the public library twice a week to fill up their book bags with new books. I was often surprised by the subjects they were reading on their own. One daughter was teaching herself introductory Japanese and is now taking courses on it in college. Now that they're in college, one of the gripes I hear is that there isn't enough time to read anything but the assigned texts. I like to think that, with their attitude toward education and the learning process, when they graduate from college they'll be armed to the teeth to take on the world.

Growing? Fully grown, sated. Saturated. At it's zenith. This is a hard argument to make, as America has always been quasi anti-intellectual, pro-industrial. Pro-Capitalist. I suppose the lineage of progressive thinking, beginning with Victorian intelligentsia and moving to twenties onwards was always somewhat countered by a small-mindedness on culture, race, critical thinking, and yet broad and creative ability to invent things. "Things" is where we excel.

I am a public high-school teacher in deep-south Mississippi where the Christian fundamentalists rule the day. Personally, I'm no fundamentalists - maybe not even "religious" as consensus would have it in this place. There's no doubt that this milieu is not conducive to scientific knowledge or that there is a premium on education in general, but that is not to paint everyone here w/the same brush - in spite of the stereotypes. I can say that students in general are not motivated to learn here or probably anywhere else in this country. It really comes down to the community that you're in. If you travel 35 miles north from here, you will find a public school where the students generally excel academically b/c their parents are not the majority of blue-collar workers, so there is a premium on formal education.

Yes, there does seem to be an air of anti-intellectualism in the country at large. Students/people(of all ages) have many distractors that compete for their attention, viz., technology, etc.; incidentally, a testament not necessarily to the education system, per se, but to our institution of freedom to pursue wherever your native intelligence takes you. My personal conclusion is that they're not necessarily "dumb" b/c of the culture or lack of innate intelligence. Many advancements have been made in education that I think have enhanced the field of education, viz., learning styles/modalities, technical media (which I happen to like), etc. However, the one factor I see that we consciously or unconsciously (out of our "ignorance") neglect is that most people learn at their own pace. We lump them into a setting w/in a discrete time frame and expect uniform results. I'm convinced that approach gets us shy of our expectations. I'm sure all of us can relate to what it's like to receive insights into knowledge that came to us at various times in our lives - but only at specific times. Teens are not interested in the adult world or even being successful as adults; they're interested in being successful teens - as most of your were, if you're intellectually honest - but you did grow up, and for some of you adults who missed the opportunity for a college education, if you had that opportunity to go back as a non-traditional student, you would excel. It's a developmental issue. As human beings, we are not uni-dimensional, meaning we must factor in the cognitive as well as the affective domains when it comes to perception and subsequent conception. Don't you think it interesting that relative to the rest of the world, the U.S. has raised the standard of living and made advancements in knowledge unprecedented in such a short amount of time relative to world history? Look what this nation has done IN SPITE OF this "anti-intellectualism". I'm convinced that what has made this nation great are our institutions, viz., the freedom to pursue our self-interest as individuals. I've lived long enough to notice that there seems to be a correlation b/t this "dumbing down", and our increased insistence on top-down, govt-managerial conformity. People want to be free to be individuals - to pursue and develop their own potentials at their own pace, and if they can't they will rebel. Just how many people, anyway, does it take to design computers, develop vaccines, invent labor-saving devices, split atoms, etc. - 335 million college-educated citizens? Knowing the "fact" (and don't confuse "trivia" w/"history" or, more importantly, historiography) that George Washington was the 1st POTUS never built one bridge or baked one loaf of bread. Leave our society free for individuals to have the opportunity to pursue their own interests at their own pace using their own native intelligence, and the cream will rise to the top - as it always has.

I believe in the positive contributions of science, but i DO NOT subscribe to "scientism". Any of us who have been around long enough know that in life just as you solve one problem, you create other problems as unintended consequences - science is no exception. I mean, the same science that brought us nuclear power plants is the same science that has also delivered into the hands of man the power to destroy the world w/nuclear weapons - and that's just one example. To me it's no mystery that people are skeptical of what is being passed off as "knowledge", b/c people perceive that this advanced knowledge has not solved all problems; just created more of the same in many ways, depending on how we examine it. I'm convinced many are overwhelmed w/information - that life has become too complicated to process it all, so I suppose that when you're overwhelmed w/too many choices (theories, ideologies, etc., are no exceptions), then you choose nothing.

I am convinced that as long as we are FREE we will survive. We will learn.

Neil Postman was warning about this a long time ago. He said that people in the 18th and even 19th century were by far more literate and aware than today. Today we have become lax, lazy, and easily lead astray by false prophets and technocrats.

The school system in America is mainly to blame for anti-intellectualism not only because it's designed to indoctrinate but also because it breeds bullying. The bullying against the nerds and other smart people. It's not designed to allow creativity or positive social interaction. It's designed to make you learn what they want you to learn and be who they want you to be. Did I mention it's forced by the way?

As a public school teacher with 15 years experience, I would argue that the problems in the school system are symptoms of an anti-intellectual society rather than the cause. Most teachers and administrators tend to have the best intentions for their students to grow in creativity, intellect, and as human beings in general. If educators as a whole have a fault if say we tend to be overly idealistic as opposed to the cynicism you describe. I'm sorry if you had a bad school experience, but I stand by my claim that schools are a symptom (and victims themselves) of the anti-intellectual bully society we live in.